mes rose to reply on the whole case on
behalf of the plaintiff.

There was a moment's pause while he was arranging his notes, and then,
just as he was about to begin, the Judge said quietly, "Thank you, Mr.
Short, I do not think that I need trouble you," and James sat down with a
gasp, for he knew that the cause was won.

Then his Lordship began, and, after giving a masterly summary of the
whole case, concluded as follows:--"Such are the details of the most
remarkable probate cause that I ever remember to have had brought to my
notice, either during my career at the Bar or on the Bench. It will be
obvious, as the learned Attorney-General has said, that the whole case
really lies between two points. Is the document on the back of Augusta
Smithers a sufficient will to carry the property? and, if so, is the
unsupported story of that lady as to the execution of the document to be
believed? Now, what does the law understand by the term 'Will'? Surely it
understands some writing that expresses the wish or will of a person as
to the disposition of his property after his decease? This writing must
be executed with certain formalities; but if it is so executed by a
person not labouring under any mental or other disability it is
indefeasible, except by the subsequent execution of a fresh testamentary
document, or by its destruction or attempted destruction, _animo
revocandi_, or by marriage. Subject to these formalities required by the
law, the form of the document--provided that its meaning is clear--is
immaterial. Now, do the tattoo marks on the back of this lady constitute
such a document, and do they convey the true last will or wish of the
testator? That is the first point that I have to decide, and I decide it
in the affirmative. It is true that it is not usual for testamentary
documents to be tattooed upon the skin of a human being; but, because it
is not usual, it does not follow that a tattooed document is not a valid
one. The ninth section of the Statute of 1 Vic., cap. 26, specifies that
no will shall be valid unless it shall be in writing; but cannot this
tattooing be considered as writing within the meaning of the Act? I am
clearly of opinion that it can, if only on the ground that the material
used was ink--a natural ink, it is true, that of the cuttle-fish, but
still ink; for I may remark that the natural product of the cuttle-fish
was at one time largely used in this country for that very purpose.
Further, in ref